We are not a perfect opportunity society in the United States. But if we want to approach that ideal, we must define fairness as meritocracy, embrace a system that rewards merit, and work tirelessly for true equal opportunity. The system that makes this possible, of course, is free enterprise. When I work harder or longer hours in the free-enterprise system, I am generally paid more than if I work less in the same job. Investments in my education translate into market rewards. Clever ideas usually garner more rewards than bad ones, as judged not by a politburo, but by citizens in the marketplace.

There is certainly a role for government in this system. Private markets can fail due to monopolies (which eliminate competition), externalities (such as pollution), the need for public goods (such as education, which is indispensable in an opportunity society), corruption and crime. Furthermore, most economists agree that some social safety net is appropriate in a civilized society. When the government focuses on these things, it assists the free-enterprise system.

But when a government that has overspent for years turns to tax increases instead of spending cuts simply for the sake of “fairness,” it weakens free enterprise, lowers opportunity and impoverishes us in many ways.

It is impressive that Mr. Brooks can provide so many mistakes in just a couple of paragraphs. Though many writers have already commented that the new “fairness” argument is a reaction to the failure to find any proof that tax cuts actually stimulate anything besides deficit creation.

To the fairnes issue. If it is unfair to raise taxes on people because they make more money, then was it really fair to primarily cut taxes to people just because they make more money? Is it fair to tax people who dig ditches for income at one rate, and those who invest at another rate. (Or not tax them at all if they are John Paulson and just borrow money against earnings left in their hedge fund.)

Brooks claims that “most economists agree that some social safety net is appropriate in a civilized society” an amazingly tepid support for the idea of a safety net. I am at a loss that anyone could place an importance on fairness in taxation for the richest, but find it almost completely acceptable to gut the safety net for the poorest and weakest.

Finally, our supposed overspending is primarily the result of the Bush tax cuts of 2002 & 2003, and our prosecution of two wars. Outside of James Polk and the Mexican/American War we have alway paid for our wars through higher taxation. In the naughts we cut taxes while prosecuting wars.

To truly have equal opportunity we’d have to eliminate the raising of one’s own children, ala Brave New World. Good luck with that (not that it would even be desirable). And there would still be genetic effects.

Also, working harder and longer hours leads to more pay? What industries still work like that today?

Since these budget issues came about I still have no idea how to measure how adequate the social safety net or operation of free enterprise is in America… it makes it pretty hard to decide which one should be on the chopping block first assuming there is actually a real decision to be made between the two. How we measure these things would determine our responses also.

Simple measures don’t seem to work at all anymore, social spending compares with other countries yet inequality is still high. There are many complaints about how corporations operate that don’t involve how much they are taxed.

“But when a government that has overspent for years turns to tax increases instead of spending cuts simply for the sake of “fairness,” it weakens free enterprise, lowers opportunity and impoverishes us in many ways.”

So much horse dung in this paragraph, I don’t know where to begin.

I’ll pick one: we need tax increases because it was unfair to cut taxes on the wealthy in the first place. Now those who depend on the social safety net need to suffer because of an unjustified and economically fraudulent tax cut? Horse dung.